Miscommunication over Hammegk's Contradiction

[apoger]

This topic began in the CT forum under the heading of "Materialism and Immaterialism". Due to references to a specific poster, the mods have asked that we move the discussion to another forum. I have continued it here.

Gentlehorse said:
I still don't see it. If hammegk claims that materialism subsumes will while at the same time denying it, why is it on him to explain how the contradiction can be justified? He's not a materialist. If I were to describe the charcteristics of gentleweasel and, in doing so, noted that he subsumed "flower" while denying it's existence, it would not fall to me to justify this seeming contradiction.

The fact that hammegk is not a materialist has nothing to do with this. This argument has to do with contradictory statements.

In reference to your example above you say: "it would not fall to me to justify this seeming contradiction".

I agree 100%. It would not fall on YOU, it would fall on Gentleweasle who is the person that asserted a contradiction.

In the same way, if hammegk offers two contrdictory statements, then it is his responsibility to justify that contradiction (or retract one).

You said: "If hammegk claims that materialism subsumes will while at the same time denying it, why is it on him to explain how the contradiction can be justified?"

I am not asking hammegk to justify how materialists can do both. I think this is where our miscommunication lies. I'm not asking him to speak on behalf of materialists.

I am asking hammegk to speak to hammegk's contradiction.

Hammegk asserted (via his definition of materialism) that materialism includes "will" as part of what is included in the physical realm. He then asserted that materialism denies "will". The problem here is not that materialists do both. The problem is that hammegk is wrongly claiming that materialists do both. What he should do is retract the asstertion that materialism denies will, as it does not, by the very definition that he offered.

I hope this helps make the issue clear. :)

[Dancing David]

I would think that you might get an explanation of why the contradiction seems to exist, but given HammeGK's style that may take some time to find.

[apoger]

I would think that you might get an explanation of why the contradiction seems to exist, but given HammeGK's style that may take some time to find.

If your have the constitution, give the original thread a read. Hammegk's spectacular display of obfuscation could be a template for trolls everywhere. Eventually he "plonked" me, and fled the discussion.

[apoger]

Pardon me DD, you were part of the original discussion, and have already seen hammegk do his dance. I don't expect him to ever answer the question in a coherent manner.

The entire event was an anomaly for hammegk. Normally he avoids laying any sort of foundation, as he'd rather chew through a leg than offer a definition. He stumbled when he offered a definition for materialism. I think he made the mistake because he was so intent on taunting the poster Wrath of the Swarm. Usually he just reflects questions and babbles. With an actual definition on the table, hammegk quickly found himself in trouble. He had to choose between admitting an error or refusing to communicate. He went for the refusal.



If he ever wants to come back and play, the simple and direct question posed remains:

Logically materialism cannot both subsume and deny will at the same time. Hammegk has claimed both.

I ask him to either withdraw one assertion as invaild or explain how the contradiction can be justified.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

The entire argument is a strawman, in any case.

Either 'materialism' references specific examples and labels those things with the term 'physical', or it has a conceptual definition for the word. If it's the first - if materialists are people who think the world can be explained through currently-known principles - then there really are no materialists. Any moderately well-educated person knows that the scientific models aren't complete.

So, presuming hammegk isn't being completely facetious, we are forced to the conclusion that he's using the word 'physical to refer to a particular concept. The reasonable thing to do would be for him to explain what this concept is, and what concepts immaterialists use instead.

But he doesn't do this, because he can't do it. He can only switch back and forth between implying that physicality is defined by example and defined by concept, hoping that no one will notice. That way he can get people to respond.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What we go through so the idealists can pretend their metaphysic is different from the dreaded materialists. Criminies!

~~Paul

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

I’m a false memory (commonly as hallucination or dream) solipsist! It's all in the brain!

Materialism is!

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
What we go through so the idealists can pretend their metaphysic is different from the dreaded materialists. Criminies!

~~Paul

And what idealists go through everytime non-idealists aver -- with a straight face -- that "I think, therefore I am" is exactly equivalent to "I am, therefore I think". :(

[apoger]

Hey hammegk! As long as you have time to do a drive-by strawman, perhaps you would also humor us with an answer to the straightforward question put to you earlier?

[hammegk]

If that was to me, do know you what plonk means?

[apoger]

Yes it was for you.

I do know what "plonk" means. It means you have me on ignore.

I also know that you are a compulsive troll and that you can't help yourself... as evidenced by the fact that you are still conversing with me even though you theoretically have me on ignore. I'd bet my left arm that you read every one of my posts in this thread. I bet you are reading this one as well. ;)

Poseur.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:
And what idealists go through everytime non-idealists aver -- with a straight face -- that "I think, therefore I am" is exactly equivalent to "I am, therefore I think".
Perhaps you could describe an experiment that we could run to determine which metaphysic is correct.

~~ Paul

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Or a simple description of what actually makes the two metaphysics distinct would be nice.

Of course, we'd have to keep in mind that there really aren't any people who are materialists as hammegk defines them (just as there aren't many people who believe the Earth is a flat plane). So most if not all of his assertions that certain groups have a materialist philosophy are simply wrong.

Here's a simple question: are Turing machines part of materialistic or immaterialistic philosophies?

[Dancing David]

Apoger, Hi there!

The problem is one of semnatics, due to the words that hamme invests in his world structure already holds certain beliefs. One of them is that a world that is part random and part determined can not have free will.(This is a view that Franko also holds, so they believe in this dichotomy) So they assert that it is thier belief that a materialist world can not have free will, also something to due with thier definition of the self as immaterial.

I don't defend them, but they can be obstinant. And a lot like Ian at times, they can insist that something means something and are not willing to repeat the rationale. Basicaly it always gets down to a personal belief that certain things can not be material.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But the only evidence they have for libertarian free will is that "it feels like I'm making a free decision when I make one." What kind of evidence is that? Heck, I think it feels like I'm making a free decision, too, but I'm not bold enough to assert that that's evidence of anything.

~~ Paul

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Ah, but materialism as hammegk defined it doesn't imply that the universe be partly deterministic and partly random (if anything, it would imply total determinism).

More to the point, immaterialism (logically being everything that isn't materialism) includes that idea.

If hammegk is rejecting that conception, then he's wrong to state that he's simply an immaterialist. He's also wrong in not suggesting a logically coherent alternative to both randomness and determinism.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
But the only evidence they have for libertarian free will is that "it feels like I'm making a free decision when I make one." What kind of evidence is that? Heck, I think it feels like I'm making a free decision, too, but I'm not bold enough to assert that that's evidence of anything.

~~ Paul

It was kind of weird when I realized that i was operating under the illusion that I definitly had free will, it sure seems that way. I like it more rthan most illusions.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, libertarian free will is a nice idea. Heck, I might even go for it if someone could give a coherent definition. But switching from "the laws of the universe made me do it" to "the teleological constraints of the Universal Mind made me do it" does not make me feel any better. The only way I'm going to feel better is to decide that "I am the Universal Mind," but then I would be nuts.

~~ Paul